Hi All
On 22 Jan 2001, at 9:03, 3dwavedave wrote:
> How are you sure that Struan is not one who rejects metaphysics
> completely? There have been and continue to be large numbers of
> philosophers who do.
That is the conclusion I reached a while ago when Struan refused to answer Puzz's
simple
request for him to define Metaphysics, then fudged it with:
"As you know, there are as many definitions of metaphysics as there are philosophers"
and finally clinched it with:
"... if one starts from a Quality position the ethical examples make good sense. This
is
undeniably true and beyond rational refutation. Similarly, if one starts from a
chocolate cake
position, then it is beyond rational refutation that all the world is composed of
chocolate
cake."
The other reason could be that if he produces a definition of metaphysics then this
can be
challenged in a number of ways plus it ties him down to a particular position and
would
probably undermine his position on both SOM and the Subject Object Dichotomy. That is
unless he produces a deliberately obscure or obviously warped definition - but that
leaves
him open to challenge etc.
Horse
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
